Thanks for chiming in.
I will see about putting my ideas down and submitting them. Of course, I'm not going to spend a bunch of time on it, so I freely admit that there may be vectors missing.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
I will see about putting my ideas down and submitting them. Of course, I'm not going to spend a bunch of time on it, so I freely admit that there may be vectors missing.
Oh hey, that's better than theoretical. What thread did you post it in? In this thread, you mentioned not being willing to spend the money on it, so that's why I didn't bother searching for your results elsewhere.
I'd be very interested in your methods and methodology.
Turnaround
Commercial User
Page 10 Post 188.Oh hey, that's better than theoretical. What thread did you post it in? In this thread, you mentioned not being willing to spend the money on it, so that's why I didn't bother searching for your results elsewhere.
I'd be very interested in your methods and methodology.
Ray Ross Bridges
You may be able to find shorter screws, and thus not have to worry about power tools. A good hardware store normally carries several lengths of set screws of the same diameter.
Edit: OK, not sure why this post jumped to this thread. I was responding to a post in a different thread.
Last edited:
I know it won't stop anything, but it WILL show non members who can see content here that we aren't all what you describe.
micguy,
The website and the marketing has a lot of dubious claims, some clearly untrue claims, and some arrogant hyperbole, while also completely missing out on what i consider the actual benefits.
I recently re-read the official website and it puts an emphasis on:
Claimed greatly increased downforce.
Claimed increased vibration transfer with the body (implying this is caused by the increased downforce).
Claimed increased sustain (implying this is caused by the increased downforce).
These are related to what you write, but are all dubious.
It is not certain the downforce is increased compared to a standard bridge with the same effective break angle.
The qualified opinion Mr. Ross sought claims greatly increased downforce.
My own calculations show a slight increase.
2 engineers contacted by forum member Turnaround claim decreased downforce, as does Turnaround's own rough experiment.
On balance this is certainly not certain or resolved.
Increased downforce increasing sustain and vibration transfer is also dubious.
I consider these claims to be industry-wide deceptive commercial-interest marketing, used to promote string-though-body bridges, that has been repeated so many times many people have come to assume it is true (i did too).
Obviously a required minimum downforce is necessary for good sustain and good contact with the body, but i doubt that increasing downforce above this minimum requirement has benefits. These claims are made for string-through-body bridges but this is challenged by experience. Top-loading bridges with a moderate break angle work and sound absolutely fine.
StefanMarinov,
The above clarifies what i meant when i wrote:
So i am not saying 'science proves this bridge is a bad design', as you seem to imply i am saying. My own scientific opinion (stated in various places in these threads) is that this probably has significant benefits, which probably outweigh the obvious disadvantage of having a length of increased mass and stiffness in the vibrating length. Listening to your video comparisons and various user's experiences seems to support my scientific opinion.
Some other comments ...
I think we should forgive Mr. Ross for claiming greatly increased downforce. They sought a qualified opinion that claims greatly increased downforce and have no reason to disbelieve this.
It is clear that Mr. Ross does not have much grasp of science or mechanics and misunderstands their own product in many ways. But i want to make clear i do not mean this as a criticism, this is fine, it is simply good that they have created something good.
I think Mr. Ross has been brave to discuss the bridge on a forum.
Most companies do not discuss their products on forums, this is probably wise and it is obvious why: The internet is brutal =)
It is not so bad if you are an established company selling traditional products, but for a new company selling a radically innovative product the response will be particularly brutal.
I can understand why Mr. Ross may have decided to no longer discuss the bridge on forums, and this is possibly wise =)
I agree with all this and it is scientifically correct. However i think it is not particularly relevant to the Ray Ross Bridge because these are probably not the actual (as opposed to the stated) benefits of the bridge.
The website and the marketing has a lot of dubious claims, some clearly untrue claims, and some arrogant hyperbole, while also completely missing out on what i consider the actual benefits.
I recently re-read the official website and it puts an emphasis on:
Claimed greatly increased downforce.
Claimed increased vibration transfer with the body (implying this is caused by the increased downforce).
Claimed increased sustain (implying this is caused by the increased downforce).
These are related to what you write, but are all dubious.
It is not certain the downforce is increased compared to a standard bridge with the same effective break angle.
The qualified opinion Mr. Ross sought claims greatly increased downforce.
My own calculations show a slight increase.
2 engineers contacted by forum member Turnaround claim decreased downforce, as does Turnaround's own rough experiment.
On balance this is certainly not certain or resolved.
Increased downforce increasing sustain and vibration transfer is also dubious.
I consider these claims to be industry-wide deceptive commercial-interest marketing, used to promote string-though-body bridges, that has been repeated so many times many people have come to assume it is true (i did too).
Obviously a required minimum downforce is necessary for good sustain and good contact with the body, but i doubt that increasing downforce above this minimum requirement has benefits. These claims are made for string-through-body bridges but this is challenged by experience. Top-loading bridges with a moderate break angle work and sound absolutely fine.
StefanMarinov,
The above clarifies what i meant when i wrote:
Although what micguy wrote is scientifically correct, i do not consider it particularly relevant to the Ray Ross Bridge because what is discussed is only the company claims and marketing, which i consider dubious misunderstandings.
So i am not saying 'science proves this bridge is a bad design', as you seem to imply i am saying. My own scientific opinion (stated in various places in these threads) is that this probably has significant benefits, which probably outweigh the obvious disadvantage of having a length of increased mass and stiffness in the vibrating length. Listening to your video comparisons and various user's experiences seems to support my scientific opinion.
Some other comments ...
I think we should forgive Mr. Ross for claiming greatly increased downforce. They sought a qualified opinion that claims greatly increased downforce and have no reason to disbelieve this.
It is clear that Mr. Ross does not have much grasp of science or mechanics and misunderstands their own product in many ways. But i want to make clear i do not mean this as a criticism, this is fine, it is simply good that they have created something good.
I think Mr. Ross has been brave to discuss the bridge on a forum.
Most companies do not discuss their products on forums, this is probably wise and it is obvious why: The internet is brutal =)
It is not so bad if you are an established company selling traditional products, but for a new company selling a radically innovative product the response will be particularly brutal.
I can understand why Mr. Ross may have decided to no longer discuss the bridge on forums, and this is possibly wise =)
@ixlramp
You talk a lot about "downforce" in your post. I can't find that term on the website for this bridge. This makes sense, as the bridge we're discussing, given the way it works, exerts no net downforce on the body. It does exert a torque; the leading edge (towards the nut) is pushing down, but at the same time, the trailing edge is pulling up. But we're talking about static forces - those probably have nothing to do with sustain. They're important to make sure the screws you use hold the thing in place so it doesn't rip itself off the body, but beyond that, if the bridge is rigidly held to the body by the screws, those forces don't affect the vibrations, and by extension, the sustain. If the bridge isn't rigidly held, the torque would have the effect of increasing the effective compliance at the bridge/body joint (making that less stiff), which would reduce sustain, but I'd guess that's not significant.
Again, vibration transfer (as a way to better sustain) is a myth in an electric instrument. In an acoustical instrument, you need energy transfer to produce acoustical output. An electric insttument is different. Yes, some transfer happens, but increasing transfer decreases sustain, as any energy "transfered" to the body is accomplished by stealing that energy from the string. What you want (if your goal is to increase sustain) is a stiff, massive end for the string to reflect its energy off of.
Mr. Ross's bridge doesn't materially change the end condition of the vibrating string. It's still way stiffer and more massive than the other end of the string (the fret on the neck). Yes, it applies a torque instead of a downforce to the body, but that's static forces, which have little to do with the vibrations going on - if they have any effect, it would work against this design - it would have reduced sustain (but marginally).
You talk a lot about "downforce" in your post. I can't find that term on the website for this bridge. This makes sense, as the bridge we're discussing, given the way it works, exerts no net downforce on the body. It does exert a torque; the leading edge (towards the nut) is pushing down, but at the same time, the trailing edge is pulling up. But we're talking about static forces - those probably have nothing to do with sustain. They're important to make sure the screws you use hold the thing in place so it doesn't rip itself off the body, but beyond that, if the bridge is rigidly held to the body by the screws, those forces don't affect the vibrations, and by extension, the sustain. If the bridge isn't rigidly held, the torque would have the effect of increasing the effective compliance at the bridge/body joint (making that less stiff), which would reduce sustain, but I'd guess that's not significant.
Again, vibration transfer (as a way to better sustain) is a myth in an electric instrument. In an acoustical instrument, you need energy transfer to produce acoustical output. An electric insttument is different. Yes, some transfer happens, but increasing transfer decreases sustain, as any energy "transfered" to the body is accomplished by stealing that energy from the string. What you want (if your goal is to increase sustain) is a stiff, massive end for the string to reflect its energy off of.
Mr. Ross's bridge doesn't materially change the end condition of the vibrating string. It's still way stiffer and more massive than the other end of the string (the fret on the neck). Yes, it applies a torque instead of a downforce to the body, but that's static forces, which have little to do with the vibrations going on - if they have any effect, it would work against this design - it would have reduced sustain (but marginally).
All claims of efficacy aside, just saw the Ray Ross for sale on Best Bass Gear, if it didnt work, i dont suppose they'd keep selling it for long. The Market will Speak.
I think that you are both correct, but thinking of different forces happening in the bridge. The torque caused by the string pulling against the pin and resisted by the screw holding it into the bridge does create a force on the main body of the bridge, which could be thought of as a "down force." So yes, torque is induced, and it results in a force vector which goes toward the body of the instrument. I think this is supported by the testing that @Turnaround has done.
Sorry, I'm lazy at creating diagrams.
I'm not convinced that more downforce has a positive effect on the sound of an electric bass, nor that less downforce has a negative effect.
Indeed, the YT videos I've seen tell me that basses equipped with the Ray Ross bridge sound fine (better or worse depending on what you like) and that the market will determine success or failure.
Sometimes the market is convinced by the placebo and the snake oil. Just sayin'.
The bridge sounds different, and in my opinion a lot better. That is no placebo or snake oil. I’d understand if you said it’s not to your liking which is fine, but what you’re sayin’ suggests that the only differences it brings to the table are marketing claims, which isn’t true. It does sound very different on my basses.
It’s definitely not a placebo as it will have some inherent change (regardless of what degree that change may be), but it may still be snake oil which would simply imply that it does something different than is claimed by the manufacturer. Enough of the claims made by the manufacturer are verifiably false that the bridge is already snake oily to a degree. The distinction is whether or not the end user likes those differences or not. At that point it would still be snake oil, but that wouldn’t matter to the end user who genuinely likes the product due to actual differences or those perceived through a placebo. Snake oil is relative to what’s advertised (ie the manufacturer says it does X but it really does Y) not whether or not it’s a good product.
Only if you took what I said and removed the "sometimes" and related it to this product alone. I wasn't referring to this product. I was just pointing out that there is a placebo effect with products on the market. If a person is told a product changes something, it's more likely the person will perceive that change whether it's real, or not.
I don't have any idea whether this bridge changes the tone, or not. I don't own one. I can't trust a YouTube video, or someone's sworn testimony (non-scientific) because the way the bridge makes a person play might change the tone, which wouldn't really be the bridge changing the tone, but rather how someone is playing. In the end, it's a bridge. The thing that holds the strings on and intonates them. If you like this bridge, great! I'm not arguing any which way about it.
Solid point.
The challenge is that one cannot use physics to solve a philosophy problem.
I have a B.S. in mechanical engineering and a B.A. in mathematics (paid for with bass/music money).
I can use fixed wave physics to analyze the value of energy transferred between a string and a body/neck through the only 2 anchor points. I can use physics to show that the neck and body vibrate in unison with the string, etc. But I can't use math or dynamics or statics or vibrations to prove anything to someone who just really likes the looks of their old P bass.
I suspect any bridge maker has an uphill battle selling physics to artists.
Haha dude, I wish I had magic fingers that could pull extra frequencies from my bass on demand
No, my technique didn’t change, the bridge just produced different sound.
Haha dude, I wish I had magic fingers that could pull extra frequencies from my bass on demand
No, my technique didn’t change, the bridge just produced different sound.
As far as you know. There's nothing magic about a bridge making the bass feel different, and therefore causing you to pluck the strings in a slightly different way, which changes the sound of the bass. Just sayin'.
I appreciate what you’re saying mate, I just don’t think that’s what happened in this case.
The frequencies in the two samples didn’t change in a way that can be produced by technique.
Not boasting - just saying that I’ve been playing bass for a living since 1998 - I know my stuff, would have known if it was me causing it.
That's great, man. I wasn't directing what I was saying at you anyway. You're just the one that responded. To say how you strike the string doesn't change the output frequencies is ludicrous. Where you play on the string, and how hard you strike it will both change the tonal characteristics. I've been playing since 1989 and have a college degree in music (electric bass was my instrument). I'm not trying to insult your intelligence, so don't insult mine.
It's just a bridge. I've said it already, and I'll say it again. If you like the bridge, that's awesome. That's all that should matter to you. All I was pointing out (not to you specifically) was that many things that people try to sell have claims of greatness attached to them that may, or may not be true, or real. The human mind experiences what it wants to in these cases (placebo effect). I did not say that is what's happening with you and the Ray Ross bridge.
Last edited:
I understand man - I’m just replying because I’ve been the one who’s had a real life experience with one. Not trying to belittle your experience in any way - glad you’ve played for a long time too, you can understand where I’m coming from - of course I’m not saying that technique can not change frequencies. I am saying that in my case this wasn’t the cause of difference and I’m 100% sure about it. That’s all.
